Why is "literally" literally the most brutally raped and abused word in the English language?

reminder that 'literally' is used as a colloquial term for emphasis at least as far back as Joyce's 'Dubliners', which makes that particular usage over 100 years old and so acceptable by the standards of pretty much anyone who actually knows what they're talking about and who isn't just whining about 'the degradation of language' to sound smart

Can you elaborate how that relates to what I said?

>because literal or surface-level meaning has become synonymous with truth
Hard to be honest when you have to keep up the facade of constant irony and sarcasm, nothing genuine.

how do I rape a word Tbh I don't know how to do it

Why am I so unappeasably horny skill the goddamn time?

>ywn lick her feet

pusyposter, is that you?

stop watching porn and stop masturbating

That light is making her look tanner and unappealing.

Is that literally in your picture?

don't drink redbull, that shit will put ur t through the roof and make u hard at the first ass jiggle

It's because modern "people" need a word to signify sincerity or conviction, because everything they say is devoid of merit and honesty. Ironically, the word has now lost meaning and is now used for insincere purposes, making both the speakers and their speech wholly worthless

What I'm talking about is unconnected to the ironic-sincere dichotomy. I still don't see how that relates to what I said.

uh oh

good to see Hypersincerity is taking hold.

Do you by any chance suffer from autism?

It's pretty likely I do. Nonetheless, I still don't think you understood what I meant.

word meanings change, you're not superior

Incorrect. You are inferior.

Mainly these.

Is retarded.

The term 'literally' is generally used as a sarcastic hyperbole, get over it.

>working at an internship
>one of the other interns says "literally" all the time, I mean maybe once every 3rd or 4th sentence
>in an act of extraordinary cruelty and pettiness, I begin keeping a count of how many times she says it per day

people should use more emphasizers like veritable desu

>sarcastic
>hyperbole

If you've listened to any young person or basic idiot talk and use "literally" in context, you'd know that there is zero sarcastic or hyperbolic influence/emphasis to their discourse.

Are you retarded? It's literally all hyperbole.

What an embarassment.

these types of "people" accelerate the degeneracy of culture
descriptivists are a cancer on the world

Using a word to mean its opposite is inherently ironic, and this irony is purely used for hyperbolic effect.
I'm sure you would never call someone out for using the word 'awful' as a negative.

At no point did I say that the word was being properly used in the context mentioned. It's a conversational turn-off that "young people and basic idiots" use in attempt to spice up their diction, when in fact they're doing the opposite.

>what is textual interpretation
Jesus, I swear you people get dumber and dumber by the day.

You are G E N U I N E L Y retarded, and it's clear as day you're new as fuck, without any knowledge of etymology

What an embarassment.

But we're losing a word. If "literally" comes to just mean "very" we've lost the concept.

That is your opinion of them, though, as it's clear you've made up your opinion of them before they ever used the word (granted, with probably some justification).
But to suggest that your criticism of their use of the word is anything but pedantic is laughable.

Words can mean more than one thing.
You should rather look at it as "we're gaining a word."

>Using a word to mean its opposite is inherently ironic

It's been beaten to a point where it's surpassed hyperbolic enhancement and now acts as a means of conveying a sense of significance or merit to what one is saying, as in

>[citation needed]
And what the fuck do you think the point of hyperbole is?

People intentionally misuse it for emphasis.

But it won't mean more than one thing. It's not like a word taking on a second, separate meaning, it's a word coming to mean the opposite of its original meaning. I'm a descriptivist but this seems like an exception to the rule

So you are willfully ignoring that that isn't happening, then?

What, you think people will look at you funny for using the word correct?

Give it some time. These things take hundreds of years

>correct

So you're not a descriptivist?

even retards listened to public school teachers enough to distinguish using verbal irony and this sad trite use of language

What an embarassment.

I am indifferent, and even archaic words are used today.
You know, you can stil use the word 'awful' as something related to awe.

>[citation needed]
Have an actual face-to-face conversation with the average person in their low-20's and younger, and observe. There's your citation. I know leaving the echo chamber can be hard sometimes, but there's more out there, I promise.

>And what the fuck do you think the point of hyperbole is?
When exaggeration is used in situations when it's not warranted, it completely loses its effect. Hence, "literally" no longer conveys hyperbole as much as it does unironic sincerity.

Good one, leave.

What an embarassment

>You know, you can stil use the word 'awful' as something related to awe.

And no one will understand your meaning. Let me ask, how often do you not have to clarify yourself when you use "awful" in this way? Ever?

Dude, i know exactly what people you're talking about, but i'm not some pedantic dilettante who would care about someone using rethorical devices correctly, just because the word was used 'incorrectly'.
And who are you ti decide if it's warranted or not?
If it is used as a hyperbole, and it does just that, it's warranted.

I don't, because i understand the difference between written text and colloquial speech.

>no one
"Okay"

Written text? Why would people be any more likely to know the (now-obscure) original meaning of "awful" if it was written?

>who are you to decide if it's warranted
>I can say it's warranted
holy... I want more

If a hyperbole is used as an hyperbole it's warranted.
Are you just acting out now?

Is your angle "if most people won't recognize something it doesn't exist"?
Because then you will lose.
As long as a word can be used and understood in the right context, it still exists, and that is literally all that matters.

It's happened to "awesome" in a few decades. People still know what you mean, but it sounds cringey.

But you would never cringe when reading the word in a poem, right?
And your personal biased towards words and your cultural associations are on you.

>Is your angle "if most people won't recognize something it doesn't exist"?

I don't really understand what you mean by this, my angle is that by gradual overusage "literally" with just be a synonym for "very", and we already have "very". I'm a descriptivist, I just think it's a bad change

>And your personal biased towards words and your cultural associations are on you.

Language is cultural associations and cultural associations only, unless you believe the English language is written in the stars.

>And who are you to decide if it's warranted or not?
>Goes on to explain when it's warranted

>I'm not some pedantic dilettante
No, you're worse. I think you need to get off Veeky Forums for a while and embrace reality, I think the whole intellectual highground thing is getting to your head. Seriously, the density is insane.

You are a lost cause if you think its original meaning will actually be lost, everytime someone uses it they are aware of its literal definition.
Language is cultural association (for the most part), but you're doing the mistake of acting as if your personal associations are universal ones.

The changes in words give more room for poetic freedom and vagueness, which is a good thing: you never lose words, you only gain new meanings (aswell as the old ones, if this wasn't painfully obvious).

How's your reading comprehension btw?>"Intellectual highground" coming from someone literally pissed from someone using a word "wrong"
The autism here is astounding.

Also, i would love for you to argue how a rethorical device used for its purpose is not warranted.

two different people called you on your contradictory nature
we all err from time to time
just back up consider maybe you are the in the wrong here

Point them out, i can't see anyone who did what you said.

Why was the chick removed? :(

And how many instances have you counted so far?